DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AT & S PVT. LTD., KARNATAKA

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. A.T.Varkey

3) of the Act. The TPO mentioned in his order that during the course of hearing in response to notice issued under section 92CA (2) of the Act, assessee had attended the office of the TPO from time to time and filed details as requisitioned by the TPO which were placed on records. The TPO had examined the details filed

DCIT, CIR-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. AT & S INDIA PVT. LTD., MYSORE

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. A.T.Varkey

3) of the Act. The TPO mentioned in his order that during the course of hearing in response to notice issued under section 92CA (2) of the Act, assessee had attended the office of the TPO from time to time and filed details as requisitioned by the TPO which were placed on records. The TPO had examined the details filed

JCIT, (OSD), CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S JAY SHREE TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.736 & 737/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13) Jcit (Osd), Cir-4(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee Square, 10, Camac Street, Industry House, 15Th Floor, Kolkata – Kolkata – 700 069. 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj 7788 D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

3) of the Act, a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application of mind. It was held that if it be held that an order which has been passed purportedly without application of mind would itself confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer to reopen the proceeding without anything further, the same would amount

JCIT, (OSD), CIR-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S JAY SHREE TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.736 & 737/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13) Jcit (Osd), Cir-4(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee Square, 10, Camac Street, Industry House, 15Th Floor, Kolkata – Kolkata – 700 069. 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj 7788 D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

3) of the Act, a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application of mind. It was held that if it be held that an order which has been passed purportedly without application of mind would itself confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer to reopen the proceeding without anything further, the same would amount

D.C.I.T.CC - XXVIII,KOL., KOLKATA vs. M/S BINANI INDUSTRIES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

disallowing expenditure “incurred by the assessee in relation to the tax exempt income”. This proportion or portion of the tax exempt income surely cannot swallow the entire amount as has happened in this case”. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and respectfully following the various judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that the addition

M/S THAKUR PRASAD SAO & SONS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CC - XVII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

3. The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee derived dividend income of Rs. 12,51,249/- . No disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to such exempt income was made by the assessee. Therefore, the Learned AO invoked the provisions of section

TATA METALIKS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowed the claim of assessee and added to the total amount of subsidy received by it while calculating the tax under Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provision. 11. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before Ld. CIT(A) submitted that incentive was received by it on account of sales tax remission of ₹3

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TATA METALIKS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowed the claim of assessee and added to the total amount of subsidy received by it while calculating the tax under Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provision. 11. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before Ld. CIT(A) submitted that incentive was received by it on account of sales tax remission of ₹3

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. It was argued by the Id AR that 69.07% of the assessee's investments (including in non-equity oriented mutual funds growth schemes) did not provide for payment of any dividend Upon redemption/disposal of such investments, the Page 45 of 59 I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 & I.T.A. Nos.: 2111 & 2112/Kol/2018 Assessment Years

BIRLA CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. It was argued by the Id AR that 69.07% of the assessee's investments (including in non-equity oriented mutual funds growth schemes) did not provide for payment of any dividend Upon redemption/disposal of such investments, the Page 45 of 59 I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 & I.T.A. Nos.: 2111 & 2112/Kol/2018 Assessment Years

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. It was argued by the Id AR that 69.07% of the assessee's investments (including in non-equity oriented mutual funds growth schemes) did not provide for payment of any dividend Upon redemption/disposal of such investments, the Page 45 of 59 I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 & I.T.A. Nos.: 2111 & 2112/Kol/2018 Assessment Years

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. It was argued by the Id AR that 69.07% of the assessee's investments (including in non-equity oriented mutual funds growth schemes) did not provide for payment of any dividend Upon redemption/disposal of such investments, the Page 45 of 59 I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 & I.T.A. Nos.: 2111 & 2112/Kol/2018 Assessment Years

N L C NALCO INDIA LTD PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ONDEO NALCO INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm& Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

3) of the Act. The TPO mentioned in his order that during the course of hearing in response to notice issued under section 92CA (2) of the Act, assessee had attended the office of the TPO from time to time and filed details as requisitioned by the TPO which were placed on records. The TPO had examined the details filed

NLC NALCO INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm& Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

3) of the Act. The TPO mentioned in his order that during the course of hearing in response to notice issued under section 92CA (2) of the Act, assessee had attended the office of the TPO from time to time and filed details as requisitioned by the TPO which were placed on records. The TPO had examined the details filed

M/S. PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

section 14A r.w.r. 8D. Disallowance if any, should be restricted to the amount . Disallowance if any, should be restricted to the amount . Disallowance if any, should be restricted to the amount suo-moto 4 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited M/s. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited disallowed by the assessee. T . The disallowance should, in any case

AT&S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.77/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) At & S India (P) Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-11(1), Kolkata

disallowing the payments aggregating to INR 9,97,50,264/- made by the assessee to its AE for receiving purchase and order handling services and sales services from the Associated Enterprise(‘ AE’).This covers the revised ground Nos. 4 to 8 of the Assessee. 4. We shall take up additions challenged on account of transfer pricing adjustment as has been

ITO, WD.9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHARAJ VINCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

3). 10. In Trustees of H. E. H. the Nizam's Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 381 the Apex Court has observed that it is "settled law that unless the return of income already filed is disposed of, notice for reassessment under section 148 of the I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 & C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Maharaj Vincom

ALOK KUMAR SARKAR,HOOGHLY vs. CIT, KOLKATA-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Alok Kumar Sarkar..................………...................................…..……………….…...……..…….............Appellant C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Seben Brothers’ Lodge P.O. Buroshibtala P.S. Chinsurah Dist. Hooghly Pin – 712 105 [Pan : Akkps 9552 R] Vs. Commissioner Of Income-(8), Kolkata...............................................………………...…...........Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 6Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 12Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

3)of the Act, Section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Act, and the issue of LTCG and STCG. He submitted that the Assessing Officer had called for details and examined all these three issues and thereafter examined these issues and taken a possible view, in accordance with law. He filed a paper book containing the copies of order sheet entries

USHA MARTIN VENTURES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T CIR - 6,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10 Usha Martin Ventures V/S. Dcit, Circle-6 Ltd., 24, R.N.Mukherjee Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Road, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- Chowringhee Squre, 700 001 Kolkata-700 069 [Pan No.Aaacu 3843 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 14A read with rule 8D by observing as under : “51. The Assessing Officer has calculated the interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) by taking the value of the net assets rather than the gross assets. The appellant has submitted that total assets are to be taken as denominator rather than the net assets for calculation of disallowance under Rule